EMMANUEL PAPA PIREKU vs. ALHAJI ADAM IBN ALHASSAN [2010]DLCA3127

Date	2010-04-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL H1/134/08
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA3127

MARIAMA OWUSU J.A. [PRESIDING]

F.G. KORBIEH J.A.

R.C. DANQUAH J.A.

E.K. MUSAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

A.A. LUGUTERAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT.

[2010]DLCA3127
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >EMMANUEL PAPA PIREKU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ALHAJI ADAM IBN ALHASSAN<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL
APPEAL H1/134/08&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;30TH
APRIL, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E.K. MUSAH ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

A.A. LUGUTERAH ESQ. FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MARIAMA OWUSU J.A. [PRESIDING], F.G. KORBIEH&nbsp; J.A., R.C. DANQUAH J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARIAMA
OWUSU, J.A.:-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>On the 10-3-2008, the High court,
Tamale, ruled among other things that; “I
have referred to the claim and the statement of claim that, the applicant paid
the sum of GH¢20,500.00 to the respondent in respect of the purchase of a
vehicle.&nbsp; By the averment in paragraph 5
(e) of the statement of Defence, the respondent admits that he did receive such
an amount from the applicant but added that it included about GH¢3,000.00 for
repairs.&nbsp; I have also shown by the
pleadings that, the respondent, upon receipt of the said sum of GH¢20,500.00
neither supplied the applicant with the vehicle nor has he since refunded the
money to him.&nbsp; The said averment as
contained in paragraph 5 (e) of the statement of Defence, in my view therefore
not only constitutes an admission by the respondent that he received the sum being
claimed by the Applicant, but also that the admission is made in clear,
unambiguous and unequivocal language and therefore qualifies as an admission
under Order 23 Rule 6 (2) of C.I. 47 upon which the applicant can apply for
judgment without waiting for the determination of any other question that may
exist between the parties……. <o:p></o:p>Accordingly,
the application will be and is hereby granted and the applicant is declared
entitled to the return of the sum of GH¢20,500.00 with interest thereon from
the date of the issue of the writ, upon the admissions contained in paragraph 5
(e) of the respondent’s statement of Defence, plus cost of GH¢500.00”. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dissatisfied with the said ruling,
the defendant appealed to this Court.&nbsp;
The Grounds of Appeal are as follows:-<o:p></o:p>(i) The learned trial judge
misconstrued Order 23 Rule 6 (2) of C.I. 47 of 2004, when he held that because
Order 23 Rule 6 (2) of C.I. 47 does not contain a time limitation, the
Plaintiff/Applicant/Respondent who applied for Directions under Order 32 of
C.I. 47 of 2004, drew up the issues for which he found were apparent on the
pleadings for trial and had them set down on the 3-8-07 by the same trial judge
in the absence of the Defendant/Respondent/Appellant, could abandon the said
directions which contained both issues of fact and serious points of law and
fall back for a relief under ORDER 23 Rule 6 (2) of C.I. 47 of 2004. <o:p></o:p>(ii) The learned trial judge erred
in law when he entered judgment for the Plaintiff/<o:p></o:p>Applicant/Respondent under Order 23
Rule 6 (2) of C.I. 47 of 2004 upon alleged admissions in
Defendant/Respondent/Appellant’s Statement of Defence when he the same
Plaintiff/Applicant/Respondent denied the said averments of paragraphs 5,7 and
10 in his reply filed on the 31-5-07.<o:p></o:p>(iii) The learned trial Judge erred
in Law when he held that even though the Plaintiff/<o:p></o:p>Applicant/Respondent had set down
“Estoppel” for trial as a legal issue, it was not an issue because
Defendant/Respondent/Appellant did not raise it to set aside the writ.<o:p></o:p>(iv) The learned trail Judge failed
to examine and consider the pleadings adequately and consequently failed to
appreciate that, there was no admission in them to entitle the
Plaintiff/Applicant/Respondent to Judgment under Order 23 Rule 6 (2) of C.I. 47
of 2004 <o:p></o:p>(v) The cost of GH¢500.00 is
arbitrary and excessive.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(vi) Further Grounds to be filed
when the record of proceedings is received from the trial Court. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The reliefs sought from this Court
are: <o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;
The entire Ruling in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant/Respondent to be
set aside.<o:p></o:p>(b) An Order that, Suit No. E2/46/07
between the Plaintiff and Defendant be tried on the Summons for Direction filed
by or on behalf of the Plaintiff on the 25-7-07 and taken on the 3-8-07.<o:p></o:p>Before going into the merits or
otherwise of this Appeal, I would like to give the facts of the case. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff/Applicant/Respondent
by his writ of summons claims against the Defendant/Respondent/Appellant;<o:p></o:p>(1) The sum of ¢205,000,000.00 being
money received from the Plaintiff by the Defendant for the purchase of a MAN
DIESEIL vehicle for the Plaintiff which vehicle the Defendant has since failed
to deliver to the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>(2) ¢3,000,000.00 being cost of
spraying the said MAN DIESEL which the Defendant allegedly sold to the
Plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>